JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. : In W.P.(C) No.23307 of 2011, the State Government represented through Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Orissa Secretariat, Bhubaneswar, who is the petitioner, challenges the action of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in granting approval for admission into 2nd shift Degree Engineering Programme for the academic session 2011-2012 to the opposite parties 3 to 13 institutions ignoring the views of the State Government and violating the principle of natural justice. 2.In W.P.(C) No.11791 of 2012, the Director of Technical Education and Training-cum-Chairman, Diploma Entrance Test Committee, 2012, who is the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in granting approval for admission into 2nd shift Diploma Engineering Programme to the institutions of opposite parties 3 to 6. 3.In W.P.(C) No.11993 of 2012, the petitioner, who is an Educational Institution challenges the action of the State Government in not including 2nd shift Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Diploma Courses for the petitioner’s institution with seat matrix meant to be followed through E-Counselling process in spite of duly accorded approval received by it from the All India Council for Technical Education (in short the “AICTE”) for the academic session 2012-2013. 4.Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5.The State Government, as matter of policy, took a decision for not to recommend for 2nd shift Engineering Programme. Accordingly, by notification dated 1.2.2011 they have clearly indicated the reasons for not recommending for 2nd shift Engineering Programme for approval. The reasons are as follows : 1. In comparison to the year 2008, the intake capacity in engineering programme has increased substantially a lot. Hence, the seat index has gone up presently. 2. In most of the states, the Technical Universities have not implemented the scheme of the 2nd shift yet. 3. Further, in the 2nd Shift, the safety and security issue of female students may pose a great problem. 4. The labs of the institutes will remain occupied most of the times leading to great difficulty for the students to carry out their project works both for the 1st and 2nd shifts. 5. The shortage of faculty members will force the 1st Shift staff to work for the 2nd shift (as admissible under the scheme) making them busy only in delivering lectures with reduced efficiency. 5. The shortage of faculty members will force the 1st Shift staff to work for the 2nd shift (as admissible under the scheme) making them busy only in delivering lectures with reduced efficiency. This may also lead to severely affecting the research work of the faculty members ultimately jeopardizing their career growth. 6. Further, during the year 2009 and 2010 many seats remained vacant in the Engineering Colleges in spite of all out efforts taken by the State Government and Management of the Colleges to fill up the seats. 6.Accordingly, the views of the State Government were communicated to the AICTE. The AICTE introduced the 2nd shift Engineering Programme in 2008 in the existing Engineering Colleges to address the issue of regional imbalance, stream wise imbalance and imbalance between Degree v. Diploma level institutions based on the ratio of the Engineering students in the State. Before granting approval, the AICTE has to consider the view of the State Government in respect of grant and/or not to grant further extension of approval to existing institutions to increase seat matrix. Though the State Government has clearly outlined the reasons for which it has not recommended for approval for the 2nd shift and not to increase seat matrix in the existing institutions. Ignoring such views, the opposite parties 1 and 2 took a decision and grant approval for 2nd shift Engineering Programme and also increased the seat matrix, which is arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provision for giving approval. 7.It is submitted that Entry-25 of, List-III deals with education including technical education. As per the schematic arrangements of the Constitution and in view of such entry, the State is empowered to take a policy decision relating to education and exercising such power and accordingly notification dated 1.2.2011 was issued. Till the year 2007, there was only 25 numbers of private Engineering Colleges and 12 numbers of such colleges were being run by the Government. From the year 2008 onwards, the number of private institutions increased and by the academic session 2011-2012, the Engineering Colleges increased from 13 to 79 under private sectors and during academic session 2010-2011 around 9,000 seats remained vacant out of total intake capacity of 27,000 seats and the said number is increased from year by year. Therefore, the approval granted by the opposite party No.1 ignoring the views of the State Government is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the approval granted by the opposite party No.1 ignoring the views of the State Government is liable to be quashed. In support of the contention, learned Advocate General cited the decision reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 212, Govt. of A.P. v. J.E. Educational Society wherein the apex Court held as follows : “The educational needs of the locality are to be ascertained and determined by the State. Having regard to the Regulations framed under the AICTE Act, the representatives of the State have to be included in the ultimate decision-making process and having regard to the provisions of the Act, the writ petitioners would not in any way be prejudiced by such provisions in the A.P. Act. Moreover, the decision, if any, taken by the State authorities under Section 20(3) (a) (i) would be subject to judicial review.” 8.Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the All India Council for Technical Education submitted that as per the AICTE (Grant of Approval for Technical Institutions) Regulation-2011, which came into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 10.12.2010, under Clauses 4.20 and 4.21 and as per the Hand Book for the academic sessions 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the AICTE has taken into consideration the views of the State Government and affiliating university which provides as under : “3.2 Views of the State Government and affiliating university. 3.3. The State Government/UT and the affiliating university/Board will forward to the concerned regional office of the Council their views on the applications received, with valid reasons or otherwise within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of applications. 3.4The views of the State government/U.T. and the affiliating university/Board will be taken into account by the Regional Committee while taking the decision whether the application is to be processed further or not. In the absence of receipt of views from the State Government/UT and/or the affiliating university/Board, the Council will proceed for completion of approval process. 9.The opposite parties have also considered the justification for increasing of Technical Education in the Country taking into consideration the growth of AICTE approval of the Technical Institution in last five years which is reproduced as under : Growth of AICTE approved Technical Institutions in last five years. 9.The opposite parties have also considered the justification for increasing of Technical Education in the Country taking into consideration the growth of AICTE approval of the Technical Institution in last five years which is reproduced as under : Growth of AICTE approved Technical Institutions in last five years. Year Engineering Mgmt MCA Phar Arch HMCT Total Added in the year 2006-07 1511 1132 1003 665 116 64 4491 171 2007-08 1668 1149 1017 854 116 81 4885 394 2008-09 2388 1523 1095 1021 116 87 6230 1345 2009-10 2972 1940 1169 1081 106 93 7361 1131 2010-01 3222 2262 1198 1114 108 100 8004 643 2011-12 3393 2385 1228 1137 116 102 8361 357 Growth of intaken in AICTE approved Institution in last five years Year Engineering Mgmt MCA Pharm Arch HMCT Total Added in the year 2006-07 550986 94704 56805 39517 4543 4242 750797 73566 2007-08 653290 121867 705135 2334 4543 5275 907822 157025 2008-09 841018 149555 73995 64211 4543 5794 1139116 231294 2009-10 1071896 179561 78293 68537 4133 6387 1408807 269691 2010-11 1314594 277811 87216 98746 4991 7393 1790751 381944 2011-12 1485894 352571 92216 102746 5491 7693 2046611 255860 10.The view of the State Government was considered in its Regional Meeting held on 28th May, 2011, in item No.ERC/42.4 regarding the NOC’s received from Government/UTs and affiliating Universities regarding starting of new Technical Institutions, new programme(s)/course(s) variation in intake, etc. The Committee considered NOC’s received from the State Governments and the Affiliating Universities. 11.Similarly, AICTE Approval Process Hand Book for the academic session 2011-2012 deal with the issue of views of State Government and Affiliating University which is provided as under : “3.2 Views of State Government and affiliating university. 3.3. The State Government/UT and the affiliating university/Board will forward to the concerned regional office of the Council their views on the applications received, with valid reasons or otherwise within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of applications. 3.4 The views of the State Government/U.T. and the affiliating university/Board will be taken into account by the Regional Committee while taking the decision whether the application is to be processed further or not. In the absence of receipt of views from the State Government/UT and/or the affiliating university/Board, the Council will proceed for completion of approval process. 3.4 The views of the State Government/U.T. and the affiliating university/Board will be taken into account by the Regional Committee while taking the decision whether the application is to be processed further or not. In the absence of receipt of views from the State Government/UT and/or the affiliating university/Board, the Council will proceed for completion of approval process. 12.The Regional Committee received the letters dated 17.1.2012 and also 16.6.2012 respectively from Joint Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Orissa and as per the prevailing practice, the AICTE adopted the view taken by a Scrutiny Committee held on the subject for the academic session 2011-2012. 13.The Executive Committee of AICTE basing on the recommendation of the Regional Committee has granted extension of approval to the existing institutions for 2nd shift Engineering Programme and approval for such 2nd shift has not been granted for the year 2011-2012 to any new institution. Therefore, the approval granted by the AICTE for the year 2011-2012 is only a continuation of the approval already granted to those institutions in the year 2010-2011. Such approval for the academic year 2011-2012 was upheld by this Court in Writ Appeal No.328 of 2010 with batch disposed of on 9.11.2010. Therefore, the writ applications filed by the State Government and its authority are liable to be dismissed. 14.Considering the above and in view and view of the fact that the AICTE has been established in accordance with the provisions contained under the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 with a view to proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the Country. The promotion of qualitative improvements of such technical education in relation to planned quantitative growth and to regulate and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith, it is the duty of the Council to take all steps as it may think fit and grant approval with seat matrix to open and establish technical institutions. To carry out its objective, Hand Book has been published by the AICTE for the purpose of imparting education of the institutions and its promoters. The institutions desirous of getting approval of the AICTE regarding Technical Education are required to apply in the prescribed form and after due scrutiny by a committee, letter of approval is issued by the AICTE. To carry out its objective, Hand Book has been published by the AICTE for the purpose of imparting education of the institutions and its promoters. The institutions desirous of getting approval of the AICTE regarding Technical Education are required to apply in the prescribed form and after due scrutiny by a committee, letter of approval is issued by the AICTE. While granting such approval, the AICTE indicates the intake capacity of the institutions in question and after scrutinizing the documents regarding infrastructure, staff, library, etc, the AICTE, as stated above, is the controlling and approval authority, so far as technical educations are concerned. 15.No doubt, the private sectors are encouraged to establish the institution to impart education/technical education to the students, as the Government is not in a position to establish such type of institution, as required to be established. 16.The world recognize impart of technology on human kind. In an era of rapid future growth-one has to go for human capital formation, both for manual and for knowledge/skilled workers. This needs huge investment in infrastructure including education and basic health and much higher standard of governance right through the value to create an atmosphere of an international competitive fair inclusive work place. There need to be great focus on skill formation and capability building. According to recent tentative survey done by the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department (As reveals from Education Times of Times of India), the gross enrolment ratio for higher education has increased from 12.4% to 20.2% in last five years. The number of students enrolling for higher education appears to have increased. Taking into view the above aspect with a future foresight, the AICTE extended approval for establishment of the technical institutions. 17.The AICTE considering the principle of students enrolling for higher education, which has increased the capacity of the existing institutions, approved 2nd shift, to accommodate such number of students. The infrastructure and staff are being maintained by the institution itself. However, the AICTE while extending such approval, considering the view of the State Government, took the decision. Once the institution has received approval, the State Government should not have put restriction in those institutions in not reflecting the seat matrix and extended approval of the institution in the website at the time of counselling for admission to such technical courses. However, the AICTE while extending such approval, considering the view of the State Government, took the decision. Once the institution has received approval, the State Government should not have put restriction in those institutions in not reflecting the seat matrix and extended approval of the institution in the website at the time of counselling for admission to such technical courses. The decision, as cited by the learned Advocate General, in the case of Government of A.P. (supra) wherein the apex Court has held that educational needs of the locality are to be ascertained and determined by the State. The representatives of the State have to be included in the ultimate decision-making process, which is subject to judicial review. There is no dispute regarding the said proposition of law. In the present case, since the AICTE has taken into consideration the view of the State Government and extended approval to the institutions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 18.Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos.23307 of 2011 and 11791 of 2012 are dismissed and W.P.(C) No.11993 of 2012 is allowed. Ordered accordingly.